I can only report from a viewpoint inside my own filter bubble obviously, but this "two or three jobs to earn a living" is something that is still associated with the US here and practically unheard of in Germany.

Well, then i guess your bubble has a particularly large diameter. With almost 1 in 10 workers in Germany being part of the 'working poor' [1], there would otherwise be one in your social circle. [1] https://www.boeckler.de/106575_109897.htm

The definition of "working poor" they use is not "having two or more jobs" but "earning less than 60% of the median".

According to IAB 2.7 million workers have a second job in Germany (which is about 1 in 12). Most of them probably because they don’t earn enough in their first.

Not to forget that this number alone doesn't mean anything, we still need to compare this number to other countries or to the past. But then we also need to consider stuff like this: AFAIR the number of "working poor" or "relative poor" decreased in/after the crisis 2008. Why? Not because companies paid more during the crisis but simply since the median income decreased.

"Working poor" in Germany means having to use the social security systems to make up for the difference between what they earn and what they need.

And yes, this means that those jobs are tax subsidized.

It used to be an Americanism, but French documentaries showed the disappointments of many factory jobs; and lots of politicians there too say that the economic wonder is only so because they allowed for very harsh but unmeasured life condition.

What I hear is that things are going downhill in Germany too with Euro jobs and eternal internships. but i think there is generally still an assumption to you should be able to live from a full time job

In addition to what ManuelKiessling already said, I can also report that in my bubble this is not the case, but it is hard to accurately judge our bubbles.

According to this bar chart on wealth distribution in the EU [1] there is a huge difference between the average and median wages in Germany, so I would expect the group of poor workers to be much larger than we think it is.

Of course, being poor in Germany might mean something different than in the US, since we still have better access to healthcare (at least in my opinion, I don't know enough about the US system to be 100% sure).

[1]: http://media0.faz.net/ppmedia/aktuell/wirtschaft/831437975/1...

\EDIT: I should have cited the source accurately, the chart comes from the FAZ, a huge and respected German newspaper.

Your chart is about assets not income/wages as you claim. Since the chart is in German too, readers can't see that.

People in Germany seem to prefer rent over freehold property, this might explain Germany's low numbers compared to other states.

Maybe my English skills aren't up to what I thought they were, so please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't "Bruttojahreseinkommen" "gross annual income"?

On the left there is wealth (/assets, "Vermögen"), then the next part is about the percentage of people who own houses ("Anteil Hausbesitzer"), and then comes the meat of the chart, the difference in gross annual income ("Bruttojahreseinkommen").

I am sorry to venture so far off topic, but I do most of my thinking either in German or in English which makes me vulnerable to stupid mistakes when the two overlap, so I would really appreciate it if you could tell me where I went wrong.

No sorry, you are right. There are also wages in this chart, I didnt't see that. Sorry for that...

But IMHO the difference between median and average isn't that big in Germany, even smaller than in Austria which doesn't have Hartz IV and Euro-Jobs. What would you consider acceptable? Also consider that these numbers may contain salaries for part-time jobs too. And those numbers are from 2010.

What would I consider acceptable? That's actually a good question, maybe I am just a bit hard to please. Now that I think about it again after a few days, you may be right, and I may just be too hard on Germany here.

It's probably just that I think that we should theoretically be in a good position to lower the divide between the rich and the poor, and instead it always seems to widen. I tend to forget that in a lot of other countries the situation is even worse, and maybe I should be thankful for what we have already achieved.

Thanks for the perspective, and a good Day of German Unity to you!

> People in Germany seem to prefer rent over freehold property, this might explain Germany's low numbers compared to other states.

For the average German, buying a house means 30 years of debt: 300 000 EUR vs. 50 000 EUR salary (which is actually 30 000 EUR due to taxes and mandatory health insurance).

But is this really different in other countries? I would say the numbers also apply for Austria. Although 300k is probably more the lower bound. Even if you built the house yourself in the rural area of the country. Austria already has a higher number of freehold property compared to Germany.

IMHO much of the difference between countries in this regard can be explained by tradition, history or population density.

There is still the East/West divide. Less jobs and lower payment in the East. Then there is a larger sector with low-paid jobs and lots of people from East Germany and Central/East Europe competing. The EU rights makes it easy for EU-citizens to look for jobs in Germany.

Mostly everybody with medium- or high qualifications should have no problems finding a well-paid job. Across all ages. In the western parts of Germany...

I've recently read that the east still hasn't recovered from the pre reunification lag... crazy.

Has southern Italy ever recovered from not being the north? Has the American Midwest recovered from not being one of the coasts? Economies naturally concentrate and countering that takes not only effort and dedication but also wise decisions and luck. West Germany used to be very good at this, but concentration to a few major cities has been accelerating recently. It's not only eastern Germany that is being left behind, the weaker regions of the former west are suffering from the same draw.

> Has the American Midwest recovered from not being one of the coasts?

That's not a great reference point. It only works well if you're only talking about New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut.

California's GDP per capita is only about 8%-10% higher than Nebraska. Iowa is as high as Oregon. Illinois is 30% higher than Florida. Indiana is higher than Vermont. Wisconsin is higher than North Carolina. Minnesota is close to Maryland. South Dakota is higher than New Jersey or Virginia. Kansas is 20% higher than Maine. Missouri is higher than South Carolina. Ohio is on par with Rhode Island.

The US mid-west is an economic juggernaut compared to the rest of the world. It's larger than the economies of France or the UK, and nearly as big as Germany. Averaged out it's very comparable to the coastal states.

> California's GDP per capita is only about 8%-10% higher than Nebraska. [..]

But how are populations developing? When people follow the money, GDP per capita evens out, maybe to the point of overcompensation given enough mobility and optimism to "make it there". Just look at how real estate prices are not matching the distribution of GDP per capita at all: real estate is less mobile than people.

(Edit: and yes, there surely are also some economic hotspots within the Midwest, some of those states are huge and have plenty of room to have their own internal concentration patterns)

Back to real estate, which brings us back to Germany, where rising real estate prices (both owned and rented) have increasingly been on people's minds recently: the solution cannot be just rent regulation or construction deregulation, it has to go to the root, find was to Conner concentration, to make the backwaters more economically viable, where housing prices ar not rising but in free fall.

I see, quite interesting.

I don't think that's crazy. The GDR economy was dismantled after the war by the soviets quite a bit more than in the west. Then it had a socialist style economy for several decades, then with the reunification, the economy collapsed. Lots of industry went away because it was not competitive and based on old technology or for various other reasons. East Germany is near to countries which are even poorer. The young people moved to the west to work there. This creates all kinds of structural disadvantages which will be hard to overcome in 50 years.

Gini coefficient is the among the highest in Europe, about 0.76. About ten years ago, a neoliberal shift loosened labor laws and saved the overall economy by letting less skilled workers not get unemployed, just take a pay cut (what France is trying to push now against a lot of protests, since government realized, the global party is over).

Wages in Germany stagnated as well, domestic trade is dwarfed by export. Living has gotten much more expensive in the cities continuously moving the shrinking middle class further down.

Germany has a track record of being strong enough, so that revolutions seldom happen. But if they happen, the are almost guaranteed to be catastrophic.

In France it's not seen as an altruist idea but as a favor to the company heads, risking too many unhealthy balance in the employee / employer relationships. An opportunity for more wild Uber management scheme in a way. When Germans talk about this idea in their country, it seems a good idea that I would back right away. But somehow nobody trusts French CEOs not to profit too much from the new flexibility.